RexTalionis:I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

RexTalionis:orbister: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

1. A gabillionaire struggling to create credibility for a corporation that took half a billion in federal alt-energy money, and sells a beautiful electric car for twice what most Americans make in a year.

2. Or a long-time reporter for the best newspaper in the world, a guy who has never had his credibility seriously questioned, who has written on the environment for decades.

Ask yourself whether it's possible that the data is somehow screwed up -- heaven knows I could produce a chart right now proving that you are actually a cat.

Seriously. Elon Musk isn't gonna give you a ride in his rocket because you White Knight him on Fark or Reddit.

fluffy2097:MrSteve007: fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.

I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.

Straw man, He pulled in for the night with enough range to reach the next station, and left in the morning without enough charge to get there.

1.) You demonstrate here that you don't even know what a strawman is, by using the term incorrectly.2.) You're talking about an entirely different leg of the trip. Due to your repeated misuse, it must be assumed that either you're illiterate or intentionally repeatedly referencing the wrong leg of the trip because you are utterly wrong.

fluffy2097:(Remember, civilian GPS is only accurate to a few meters we don't get milspec 2" accurate GPS)

That is factually incorrect. Civilian GPS has been exactly as accurate as military GPS for more than a decade, and modern GPS satellites do not even have the capability to selectively degrade the service.

Atreyou40:If there's no efficiency to be gained then why bother trying to recapture the kinetic energy of the car?

You're obviously incredibly unintelligent, the the point where attempting explanation is a waste of time and energy. But here is to hoping someone else reading is less stupid than you are.

The trip begins and ends with the car at a complete stop. Ergo the net effect of energy gain from stopping the car between driving styles is zero. An object in motion tends to remain in motion, while an object at rest tends to remain at rest. Ergo the energy necessary to maintain speed is always less than the energy to initiate motion. Ergo it is always more energy efficient to travel at a consistent speed than to start and stop repeatedly.

There may be design flaws in things like transmissions, gear and axles, aerodynamics, etc with the car. For example, Nisan and Toyota love those boxy retarded cars which suffer greatly aerodynamically. A properly designed car will always have better highway rating than city rating. That is why the Tesla Model S, Chevy Volt and Ford Taurus do better on highways, while trash cars like the Nisan Leaf do not.

fluffy2097:Only most east coast highway service stations with actual services. Here's proof it could easily have been 0.4 miles to find a charger.

Your account is way too old to be a shill or a paid troll, so I am sort of wondering why you are so diligently siding with the reporter on this one. Yes, I agree Musk is coming across pretty douchy, but in this case the facts really do seem to show that the reporter was even more of a douchbag.

If the data logs are un-modified, then the reporter is clearly in the wrong. This is a big IF, and I have a feeling that if the NYT doubles down on this derp, then we are going to see how admissible they are in court, and how solid an evidence trail they can construct. However, it would be very difficult to fake this data. They could manipulate speed graphs, but there are too many interconnected factors that would no longer add up. If they just stretched the scale to show him driving faster, the area under the curve is going to grow into a distance substantially longer than the trip he took. As someone who used to work in an engineering lab, I don't think that Tesla had long enough to construct a false data-set that would hold up to any sort of scrutiny. Remember it is not just the speed, distance, and charge data they would have to fake, but also the voltage loads on various components, mechanical data, and other internal information. The only problem Tesla has is that most Americans are too dumb to interpret graphs.

So guess you are either a troll (paid?) looking for reactions, or you have some sort of personal attachment to the NYT or the 'reporter.'

If you understand that you're losing energy, then you understand that every stop and go is a net loss.Every single time, you lose energy. And the more it happens, the more energy you're losing. Even if you're not going very far.So there can be a dramatic difference in energy consumption over 2 miles, based solely on how much stopping and going you do, even though you have super-neat regenerative brakes.

So if you happen to be driving through a section of road that's notorious for the absurd nature of its stop and go traffic -- and in winter, where climate control is eating your battery as a function of time, not distance -- then surely you realize that a detour of "only" 2 miles, may well be a significant drain on the battery,* even though* your regenerative brakes are making you much more efficient than if you'd been in an ICE car without them.

And *that* is "The Point". Regenerative brakes are good, but not so good that they can remotely outweigh the energy losses of driving "only" 2 miles of *Manhattan*, in winter.

fluffy2097:MadCat: No, they both say he had 185 miles at Milford Supercharge #1. He had 35 miles when he left Norwich.

/Perhaps you should lay off the insults a bit?

So you think its fine that he went from 90 miles to 25 overnight and was FORCED to stop at Norwich to limp to the superchargers that he was supposed to be testing? That's not a problem with the car at all could it be?

It is only a problem if you have zero understanding of science. You phone battery will run down overnight if you don't plug it in either. Imagine that!

Atreyou40:You're both dumbasses. It's called "regenerative braking" an it's been around since the first hybrids and the idea is that a car in motion has some measurable inertia and to use the brakes as a capture device for that energy. I'm no physicist, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of such a thing given our current technology, but I have no doubt it's possible and even beneficial and can extend the range of an electric car by a couple miles, if not more. Here, why don't you go learn something:

No, you're the spectacularly ignorant dumbass. Why? Because regenerative braking only recoups SOME of the energy lost to braking. In other words, if you slow down and then speed back up again, you lose energy versus staying at a steady speed.

If that wasn't the case, you'd have invented a perpetual energy machine.

So take your know-it-all attitude and shove it up your jacksie, you farking arrogant tool.

Atreyou40:You're both dumbasses. It's called "regenerative braking" an it's been around since the first hybrids and the idea is that a car in motion has some measurable inertia and to use the brakes as a capture device for that energy. I'm no physicist, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of such a thing given our current technology, but I have no doubt it's possible and even beneficial and can extend the range of an electric car by a couple miles, if not more.

What you're saying is you lack even a basic understanding of physics.

The only way regenerative braking could "add" energy to the car's closed energy system is if you braked while going downhill, and if your trip began at "uphill" from the downhill location. Using the engine (at less than 100% efficiency) to accelerate, then using the brakes (at less than 100% efficiency) cannot add charge to the system. Additionally, if you use energy to travel uphill, you cannot then gain energy by going downhill, unless the amount downhill is greater than the height uphill.

fluffy2097:The article was about the super charging system along the east coast and how it was supposed to allow a Tesla S to go on road trip just like you would with a gas powered car.

I see, so if someone stole your gasoline out of your car overnight you wouldn't have had to go spend time at a gas station to replace it?

Yes there may be a problem with the batteries in cold weather. Report on that. Report you lost charge overnight. It's the truth, it's factual and it's what reporters are supposed to do.

Do NOT try to make the story more sensational by deliberately running the car out of power. Your job is to report the news, not create it. That just shows bad journalistic integrity and misinforms your readers. Reporters have been canned for less in the past.

orbister:RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

orbister:RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

That's an understatement.Yes, I know what regenerative braking is. You, unfortunately, do not. You may think you do, but you don't.The energy reclaimed from a stop is never, ever greater than the energy taken to move the car to get to that point. It can not be, no matter what tech is invented, because of the second law of thermodynamics. (And before you farkers start: yes, if you were rolling down a hill *a given stop* might regenerate more energy, you pedant bastards. But it took you more energy than the 'extra' reclaimed energy to get up the damn hill in the first place. So unless you're on a one-way trip from Boulder to the damn sea, elevation is a wash, at best.)

So, yes, electric cars do better than ICE cars in traffic, because they don't waste energy when stopped.And, yes, cars with regenerative braking do better in traffic than cars without, because they recoup some of the energy that would have been lost.

But that doesn't mean that an electric car with regenerative brakes in traffic is more efficient than an electric car with regenerative brakes, driven at 45-52 mph on the highway, as the author claimed he was doing.

And taking a 60 highway mile trip, and turning it into 60 highway miles + 2 city miles, is never, ever going to result in less energy needed for the whole trip. Even if the 2 city miles magically took 0 energy, it would simply be a wash. And zero energy is, again, impossible unless your trip involves slowly rolling into the sea. And we could only *be* so lucky, were that the case.

That's why this Broder idiot needs to stop fighting his false reporting. He needs to own up to his lies, or slink away quietly. He can't win. Tesla has farking computer data that tells them exactly what the car was doing for the whole test drive.

Why on earth is the NYT still letting him publish under their name? This asshole is an obvious shill who lacks any kind of journalistic integrity. Fire his ass, NYT. There are literally tens of thousands of unemployed journalism majors who would happily do a much better job than he ever could.

noitsnot:I kind of figured that was just circling to get a spot - as most folks that live in big cities have to do. The spots are always all full, and you gotta circle (with a bunch of other vultures) to get a spot when one opens.

Then why wouldn't the article author admit to doing that instead of blatantly lying and saying he wasn't even in a parking lot?

The speeding, the driving around in circles, the putting the heat up, the detour even the not charging it overnight - no one cares, because that's pretty normal driving behaviour for your average person (even though the reporter wasn't truthful about those aspects).

No, the problem was he unplugged the vehicle when it said 32mi of charge left to go on a 62mi trip, driving for over 20mi on 'empty', past other recharge stations. That's a sign he wanted the car to fail, quite deliberately.

RexTalionis:I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Came for this essentially.

"She said to shut off the cruise control to take advantage of battery regeneration from occasional braking and slowing down. Based on that advice, I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage. "

Which confirms that people go into things like Journalism, theater, etc because they are utterly stupid and cannot survive in any other "profession" in the world.

Yeah, people take road trips all the time where they don't top off their fuel tank.I know the last time I took a road trip and coasted into the first gas station on fumes, I made sure I only got three-quarters of a tank before I started the next, longer, leg of my drive.And when the car says I only have enough fuel to make it half-way to my destination, I go ahead and stop fueling and try to make it anyway.And when the car is repeatedly warning me we're out of fuel, I routinely roll past fueling stations.

Because, ya know, that's just how "real people" drive.Maybe engineers do better, but we can't all have fancy educations.

Jeremy Clarkson is probably my favorite reality show person and I love everything he says and does on Top Gear. Last time I bought a car I treated each test drive as if I were Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top Gear. There are many used car salesmen who hate me.

Man On A Mission:The problem with all of this is that apparently Broder didn't do the necessary homework before testing out the car in the first place, at least according to the folks over at Torque News:

Any halfway experienced electric car driver can spot several mistakes that Broder made, and we don't need the blog post promised by Elon Musk to diagnose the missteps along the way. We're relying on a blog post by a fellow, Peter, who has taken long distance trips with his Model S, and wrote an open letter to John Broder pointing out his mistakes. Most of what Peter wrote is conventional wisdom for EV owners, some of it is specific to the Model S.The critical failures were not grabbing full recharges at the Supercharger stations, and then not grabbing a trickle charge during his overnight stay. The trip would have been a success had he done either or both.

but. that wasn't the point of the trip, he was specifically invited to test Tesla's net work of "gas stations" no tthe car itself, and frankly, his is more realistic test unless we think these cars should only be driven by people with EE degrees. Your car can go for about 20-30 mils after the gauge reaches E for a reason

orbister:RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

RexTalionis:I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

RexTalionis:I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Journalists are not renowned for their knowledge of fields other than journalism.

Unless the Tesla logs are falsified, this reporter will be posting his resume in a New York Minute.

Based on contradiction of direct statements in his article I'm going to say he started with a premise; The EV would under-perform and made sure that conditions of the test ensured it failed. No different than some bozo who decides to drive an additional 50 miles after the gas warning light has come on in a standard vehicle.

noitsnot:I kind of figured that was just circling to get a spot - as most folks that live in big cities have to do. The spots are always all full, and you gotta circle (with a bunch of other vultures) to get a spot when one opens.

It ain't like a mall in Nebraska where the parking lots are mostly empty all the time.

And I'm sure there were only 2 spots with chargers, that people with non-electric cars had taken.

This. Take a look at Google maps and you will see that half a mile is precisely 3.5 times around the perimeter of the car park. That's not unrealistic for somebody who's looking for a parking space, and endeavoring not to block other vehicles while they do so.

Frankly, the language in Musk's blog post makes me doubt his claims far more strongly than I doubt the journo's claims. Especially given that, per Musk's own admission, NYT has given very fair reviews to the vehicle in the past.

Also, I think the most damning thing about this test drive comes from Musk's blog:

"When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."

I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?